In 1937, when the economy went into a renewed nosedive during the Great Depression, President Franklin D. Roosevelt claimed that the cause was a "capital strike" by businessmen intent on destroying him and the New Deal. Roosevelt had the FBI launch an investigation of a possible criminal conspiracy by the putative corporate "strikers." The general reaction from Republicans at the time was to ridicule FDR for attempting to cast the blame away from himself and onto businessmen.
It was surprising in mid-2010 when "conservative" writer Amity Shlaes endorsed Roosevelt's view of what happened in 1937-38. She said there had been a "capital strike" in those years because of the "anti-business whimsy" of the Roosevelt administration. Shlaes went on to say last year that there was again a capital strike aimed at forcing the Obama Administration to cut spending and taxes. She succinctly described this business conspiracy against the American economy and the American people: "Companies making money and banking it. No spending. No hiring."
It was one thing for the unreconstructed antisocial Darwinist Ms. Shlaes, the darling of the right for her completely wrong-headed view of the Great Depression presented in her 2007 book, The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression, to say that corporate America was on strike in the midst of a national emergency.
Now, though, leading Republicans themselves are saying that what FDR fancied was happening three-quarters of a century ago is actually happening today.
"Job creators in America basically are on strike," House Speaker John Boehner said on Thursday. The Republican leader was openly admitting that one of the main problems with the economy and unemployment is that corporate "job creators" will continue to sit on the $2.5 trillion they have available to invest, improve the economy and provide jobs, until they are given even lower tax rates and eased government regulation.
The veil has finally been removed and the political representatives of corporate interests are letting everyone see where they are coming from and who they are serving.
Will this admission be enough to lead President Obama, the Democrats, and the American people finally to recognize the corporate interests for what their defenders Ms. Shlaes and Mr. Boehner say they are: greedy, unpatriotic forces willing to hold the nation and its people hostage until they get everything they want?
Robert S. McElvaine is Elizabeth Chisholm professor of arts & letters and Professor of History at Millsaps College, in Jackson, Miss. His books include The Great Depression: America, 1929-1941. He is now writing "Oh, Freedom! -- The Young ' 60s."
Follow Robert S. McElvaine on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@BobMcElvaine
Corporations are not people, they create nothing.
Mr. McElvaine writes, "The veil has finally been removed and the political representatives of corporate interests are letting everyone see where they are coming from and who they are serving."
I see the veil as lifting although not removed. The Corporate veil is still being used as a facade to intentionally deceive the People. The veil is used to legitimize Corporate gain with little or no regard for damage to individuals or to Country.
Mr. McElvaine asks what they want? I think the answer is simply conquest.
Corporate lawyers, legislators & lobbyists are hoping to act as mediators to arrange the peaceful submission of the people.
Personally, I'm not giving up without a fight.
Our Hidden History of Corporations in the United States
"When American colonists declared independence from England in 1776, they also freed themselves from control by English corporations that extracted their wealth and dominated trade. After fighting a revolution to end this exploitation, our country's founders retained a healthy fear of corporate power and wisely limited corporations exclusively to a business role. Corporations were forbidden from attempting to influence elections, public policy, and other realms of civic society.
Initially, the privilege of incorporation was granted selectively to enable activities that benefited the public, such as construction of roads or canals. Enabling shareholders to profit was seen as a means to that end.
The states also imposed conditions (some of which remain on the books, though unused) like these..."
The biggest problem in America today (according to the latest polls) is unemployment.
Republicans are complaining about the "thousands of new anti business regulations under Obama"
Yet "Capitalists" are taxed at less than 1/2 the maximum rate of those that "work" for a living, regardless of how many millions they make..............
Looks to me like Government tax policy is penalizing workers for working, not the other way around.
Changing the tax code, could do wonders to address this issue, and pay down the deficit at the same time.
Maybe if it wasn't for so many dollars influencing congress, tax policy would make more sense?
I've not been willing to spend capital in the US for the past three years because it's a lousy environment for investing. The return on investment simply isn't there.
So I opened a plant in China without laying off a single one of my US employees. In fact, every one of the 19 new positions in the US was for R&D or other support for the China plant.
Now my business is again profitable. Sales are up over 100% this year versus last. With next year looking to be not quite as good but also with good growth. This could not have happened keeping all of the manufacturing in the US.
Somebody wants my products. It's this governemnt that seems to not want them manufactured in the US. I'm taking it month by month and will hopefully be able to keep my US plant running. In the mean time I'm opening a third plant. Again, not in the US.
and whose bank charges less thatn 35 for an overdraft fee... and aren't most atm fees 2.50 for using a foreign atm.talk about collusion..............its a down right con spi rarcy.....................
But to think that corporations would agree to withhold capital purely for political mileage is inconceivable. If they can make a buck, they will.
Short answer: No.
Professor, I am searching for any clue that will convince me Obama is a Democrat. At this point all the evidence suggests Obama is the leader of the a conservative sleeper cell inside the Democratic Party.
The fact that the Republicans no longer feel the need to wear their disguises when they attend the corporate ball is not news. The only question now is when will Obama stop dancing with the CEOs and take off his mask?
Imagine a House of Representatives with lobbyists that were paid by no one; simply rallying members out of genuine desire to affect change. How many would be there minus the money?
Obama and any Democrat today are beholden to the same paradox the right is/are; to get elected the person has to have the support of at least a few of those corporations and lobbyists to generate enough cash to show, win, and lead or represent.
The only way to truly make changes here are to educate ourselves on who is paying whom for what. I know at least one Democratic congressman that earns no money outside of his job as a representative to his district. He too takes the contributions, and has for years, never having had a single meeting with some of those larger donors, nor returning any favors they may expect for contributing.
We can continue to burn down the house to kill a roach, or we can find the little bugger and get rid of it.
The conservative cause is dangling not a carrot, but a bag of wealth to the masses, continually yanking it out of reach.
Essentially saying "...you can have it if you're up here, but you won't be." by convincing the masses the ladder up is less government, that they in turn have not achieved, but changed.
So less government is actually code for "...less for me, more for you, and since I'm already here, and you are not, that's just too bad."
When I look at the message being played by the right, that's what I see. If I were much richer, I'm pretty sure I would be looking to roll up the avenues to access too, lest my bag of wealth be snatched away, by the mongrel hordes, only to realize too late that it was the folks even further up the ladder snatching it.
And that is any easy target; play up my anger at welfare going to deadbeats for pennies on the dollar and rub it into a rather, so I'll miss the deadbeats carrying off the trillions hidden by a penny.
?
Unless better working conditions means better working conditions that benefit the company.